from the this-isn't-the-movies,-ari dept

Famed Hollywood super agent Ari Emanuel (the model for Jeremy Piven's character in Entourage, and the brother of Chicago mayor/former Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel) doesn't have a particularly good history when it comes to his understanding of how technology and policy will develop. Two years ago, he insisted that he was talking to President Obama about getting a three strikes law in place in the US. Last year, of course, he was excited about new laws like SOPA/PIPA. That was at the AllThingsD conference, in which he chided a reporter at one point by saying that the reporter needs a history lesson and "the business of the movie business is DVDs."

This year, at the very same conference, he's changed his tune, but not his attitude or ignorance of technology. This year, he told the crowd that "the DVD business is gone" and everything was about TV, TV, TV. Except, once again, he appears to be ignorant or (more likely) in complete denial:

Emanuel: Cord-cutting's not happening.

Walt: But cord-never is happening.

Emanuel: I don’t think so. I think when people get to a certain age, they pay. Somebody’s got to pay for this, or you’re not going to get premium content, and I think that’s more valuable than "two dogs doing whatever they’re doing on a couch."

Some of this appears to be just plain old wishful thinking and some of it is ignorance. The actual numbers show that cord cutting is very, very real. Also, I'm getting pretty sick of the condescending ridiculousness where people insist that either we stick with the old model or all we have left are amateur animal videos (usually cat videos, but Ari went to the dogs). That's not just elitist. It's wrong. There's plenty of quality content that get produced outside of the traditional model, and the amount is growing. And, of course, the "somebody's got to pay for this" argument is a complete tangent. First of all, no, no one has to pay for anything, but more importantly, there are all sorts of interesting business models developing that don't require people paying for a jacked up cable subscription. Second, just because you want someone "to pay" for the content which pays your hefty salary, that has absolutely nothing to do with the reality of cord cutting. It's like the CEO of a horse buggy manufacturer insisting that no one's buying automobiles because "someone's got to pay" for all those horse buggies.

A little tidbit from history: it was the guy who left the horse & buggy business and went on to found both GM and Chevrolet (despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines) who ended up being successful. Not the guys who clung to selling horse and buggies.

Emanuel pays some lip service to technology innovation (he even seems to like the idea of crowdfunding), and talks about how involved he is in digital projects. But he still comes at it from the perspective of "how can these new technologies protect my old way of doing business?" And there, apparently, every problem is Google's fault, because they haven't created the magic "stop piracy" button. He repeatedly mentioned Google, and how they had to "stop helping people steal my clients' content." When asked how, he admitted he has no idea. When asked if he wants them to censor search results, he responded:

I don’t want them to censor results, but they have a bunch of smart guys there that can figure this stuff out.

You see? Magic "stop piracy" button.

Josh Topolsky, from The Verge, apparently challenged him on this point, asking: "Aren’t you saying that the road is responsible for the fact that someone drove on it before they robbed my house?" Emanuel didn't like this analogy:

That’s a stupid example. Look, Google can filter and does filter for child pornography. They do that already. So stealing is a bad thing, and child pornography is a bad thing.

Of course, this once again displays his ignorance. Child porn is easily identifiable by anyone who sees it. There is no "legal" child porn. There is no "authorized" child porn. There is no "fair use" child porn. There is no condition under which that content is legal and there are no legal questions to be answered in filtering it. Copyright is entirely different. You can't just "know" if the content is infringing. As we saw in the Viacom case, companies upload authorized stuff all the time, and it's often impossible to distinguish from unauthorized content. Separately, you can't create an algorithm that detects fair use. Or the public domain. Point being: it's not that easy and it's silly to claim otherwise.

Emanuel, like many people, also seems to have a blindness for how the situation he's in is no different than the situation others have faced. He talks about how the music industry should have embraced Napster when it came along -- but when he's asked about embracing similar platforms for TV, he immediately says that's ridiculous, because "these things cost lots of money." Again, we're in "wishful thinking" land, where because the producers of content do little to keep down costs, old and obsolete business models must stay in place, and new and innovative platforms must be censored.

The comment that really sums up his worldview is when he's asked about changing market behavior, whereby people mutlitask while watching TV. He says:

“I’m okay with a little bit of disruption, and let’s see what happens. I dunno. I’m good with it.”

This is the common viewpoint of the legacy player about to be disrupted in a big, bad way. They always insist that they're okay with disruption -- but in moderation. There are two really funny things about this quote. The first is the idea that disruption comes in bite-sized increments. That's not how it works. Disruption comes in massive waves that are unstoppable. And that leads to the second funny thing: he seems to think that his opinion on disruption and whether or not he's "good with it" matters to whether or not it will actually happen.

The disruption is already underway. And, for now, it looks like Emanuel's still hanging on to his cash-cow horse buggy business, while insisting that the road pavers really need to "do something" about those dangerous "automobile" things.

Reader Comments

Now that's out of the way we can have some sensible discussion on the topic. The biggest problem with the war on piracy is the fact that all of the decisions are being made by people who have zero understanding of technology and the Internet. Until that changes, we will continue to have articles like this on a daily basis.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re:

The biggest problem ... is the fact that all of the decisions are being made by people who have zero understanding of technology. Period.

Furthermore, current technology is rapidly unmasking the REAL liars and the REAL thieves and the REAL extortionists and REAL con-artists sponging off you and me, such as the MAFIAA and its greedy lying thieving members (who seem to be disproportionately of middle-eastern stone-age desert rat descent, by the way). Where is it written in stone that I'm obliged to support these lying thieving lazy scum-bags?

Re: Re: Re:

Child pornography - legal or not?

In fact, there is legal child pornography.

The illegality depends on whether the depiction is of an actual child. Computer generated images and cartoons are protected speech.

Of course, the US approach to protecting virtual child pornography is different from the rest of the world and Google may well have an interest in overblocking some speech which would not be illegal in the US in order to comply with the laws of other nations.

Re: Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

> The illegality depends on whether the depiction is of
> an actual child.

You're totally optimistic. Depending on juridiction, there are different age cutoffs, text-only may or may not be allowed, works with artistic value may or may not be allowed, depictions of children acted by adults may or may not be allowed, etc.

Not to talk about the fact that the existence of steganography means that every file on your computer might contain child porn without you knowing about it (and such ignorance is, in many jurisdictions, not a valid defense --- and even if it were, your life is already ruined the minute you have been accused, so good luck).

Not quite as bad a situation as for copyright, but still a cesspool of problems.

Re: Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

No, I may well be optimistic, but the Supreme Court has recently circumscribed the child pornography exception first enunciated in its 1982 Ferber decision.

First, in Free Speech Coalition the court ruled 6-3 that virtual child pornography is protected unless it falls within the obscenity exception. The difference between obscenity and child pornography is that possessing obscene images by itself isn't illegal, and is even constitutionally protected, whereas possessing child pornography is always unprotected.

Obscenity turns on other factors like patently offensiveness, prurient interest and community standards and lack of artistic or literary value which are not required factors regarding child pornography.

Second, in Stevens the court cautioned that child pornography's constitutionality is integral to criminal conduct -- that there must be a nexus between an underlying crime and the government's interest in outlawing its depiction.

It leaves so-called sexting prosecutions in a legal grey area, because the argument goes the government can't ban depiction of even real acts which aren't criminal.

So yes, there are a lot of speech which according to the laws of most nations would be considered child pornography, that the First Amendment might protect.

If Google takes down links to a site hosting computer generated child pornography, it in fact removes links to protected speech.

Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

The question as to whether or not there is legal "child porn" (an unfortunate phrase) is entirely jurisdiction-specific.

In England+Wales, computer generated images or cartoons are now as illegal as depictions of an actual child. However, any images (including ones of real children) must be "indecent", or obscene, offensive, disgusting etc., and those are matters for a jury.

There are also limitations in terms of artworks, films etc.

Interestingly, the age limit of child abuse images etc. in the UK is 18, despite the fact that the age of consent or marriage is 16 (it was raised under pressure from the US, much to the annoyance of certain daily newspapers who used to publish pictures of 16-17 year olds on their third page). They had to create a specific defence to possession and production for when "living as husband and wife" with the person involved...

Re: Child pornography - legal or not?

I think you're wrong about this in the US. 18 USC 2256 defines child pornography as including: "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

I got more enjoyment out of those ten 5-minute episodes than I did from any hour long tv show this past year.

Also, I am a cord-never. I will always be one. I visit my mom's house on a fairly regular basis. She is a Dish subscriber. I can never find anything interesting to watch when I am there. Why would I pay for something that I would rarely watch?

Re: Re:

Re:

I have Dish and don't mind paying a monthly subscription just for the DVR feature. I created my own DVR solution using some old equipment and it was fun to play with the technology, but it was too limited.

With Dish I am able to record shows (and movies) and then watch them from any TV in my house any time I want with ease makes this service worth it to me.

I do agree with you that there is a lot of "fluff" but if you just record what things you are interested in it makes for a worthwhile service.

I have NetFlix as well but I find that I watch my DVR recordings more than I do anything NetFlix currently offers.

Re:

I love watching that. If you haven't seen it (although it's doubtful you haven't) I highly recommend the episode where Nathan Fillion goes at the behest of Sam to try and talk to Tim about thinking he's actually Superman. Lol. Pure genius and comedy gold.

Re:

Yeah... it will be a great day when you no longer have the stuff to pirate that you love.

He's pretty much hit the nail on the head - people will not pay for as long as they can get it for free. But when not enough people are paying, and when the "alternate financing" models are not paying the way, that content source disappears.

Remember, this stuff is the content most widely pirated, most widely in demand. It's the ignorance of this basic fact that makes answers like yours laughable.

Re: Re:

Wrong. People will not pay for crap. And that's what most "premium" stuff is - crap covered in glitter to distract people from how crappy it is.

And people will not pay for inconvenience, either.

But if you give people something they like in a manner that is convenient for them, they will buy it. Steam gives me the games that I want for a good price in a convenient package; I therefore have something like 90+ Steam games.

Re: Re: Re: Convenience

Exactly. For instance, Shonen Jump recently went digital, and I stopped paying for it. I only paid for it for having the manga on paper, on big sheets of paper. If it's going to be online, I can get unofficial translations much sooner.

Re: Re:

> But when not enough people are paying,

But that is our choice, right? You do believe in democracy, don't you?

You argument is idiotic. Either the majority of people pirate, and therefore they are saying, "Find a way to make cheaper content," or the minority of people pirate, and it shouldn't matter to the industry. You can't have it both ways. Either way, the consumer is right.

Re: Re: Re:

I beleive in democracy - but it's a two way street. Believing in democracy also includes respecting the laws that are passed, and working within the democratic system to change them if you don't like them.

Doing whatever the fuck you like, without concern of the rights of others isn't democracy, that's anarchy.

"Either the majority of people pirate, and therefore they are saying, "Find a way to make cheaper content,""

Wow. You think those are the only choices? Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers. But if HBO stops producing, what will there be in the file lockers?

Cord cutters are people who think they found a better way, but they forgot to look at cause and effect. It's not about "make cheaper content", it's about "I can't get beer for free, but I can pirate your content. So I pay for beer, and pirate your stuff".

The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist. I would like a $1 a month apartment in Manhattan, at least 1500 square feet, and I would like a free butler. I am the consumer, I must be right!

Re: Re: Re: Re:

You're over-generalizing. There are plenty of people out there who are willing to pay for premium content and understand that there's a balance in the market.

The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist. I would like a $1 a month apartment in Manhattan, at least 1500 square feet, and I would like a free butler. I am the consumer, I must be right!

There's always going to be those who shift to one extreme or the other.

The fact remains too that these companies do not listen to their consumers, communication is key since they are taking the consumers money. If a consumer feels slighted by a company, why shouldn't the company attempt to find a middle ground or provide a better service when the option is available?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Wow. You think those are the only choices?"

Yes, he does. He's too stupid to either realise that the content his corporate masters crap out aren't the only choices, and he's too stupid to realise that people can be critical of the current system without being pirates.

In other words, he's too stupid to even attempt to discuss this issue, yet here he is, day after day...

Logic?

You talk about logic as if you were being logical, and you aren't.

When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Doing whatever the fuck you like, without concern of the rights of others isn't democracy, that's anarchy.

As your siding with the media industry (not to be confused with the actual artists and creative folks that make stuff..) you can't actually say that with a straight face. Based on your definition of anarchy, nothing has ever existed in history as anarchistic as the media industry.

Between the actual creative folks, artists, business partners and the public at large their stamina for screwing people is the envy of every teenage boy...

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist.

Consumers make the market, and in that respect are always right. If they make it impossible for a market to exist, so what? They have spoken.

Of course, your argument is that there couldn't be any high-quality offerings, which is incorrect. If there is a demand, it will be met. What the consumers might do is make it clear that the market as it exists does not provide what they want. Existing businesses may fail, but new ones will rise that will meet the market demand.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

> Believing in democracy also includes respecting the laws
> that are passed, and working within the democratic
> system to change them if you don't like them.

That'd be great if the system we have now didn't favor whomever has the deepest pockets and pays the lawmakers the most money.

When laws and treaties are being negotiated in secret, with only the industry lobbyists allowed to give input, that's no longer democracy the way you described it and a lot of people believe that if the system itself is ethically perverted, then it's not unethical to defy the system.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

When the laws are created through a democratic process, the people will respect them. They will also be far less weighted against the people. Our system of government guarantees a republic process, with the intent for a democratic process, but that is not always achieved.

Cord cutters are cutting the cord because we have Netflix, Hulu, Youtube and more. None of these have the blockbusters, but they have reasonably priced content and hey, watching TV is mindless relaxation. The quality of a Youtube flick passes the standards for video entertainment with ease, and I can find funny stuff about things big media will never cover.

Very few people are movie critics with exacting standards, and Hollywood often misses the standards that real people have.

I care far more about Sherlock Holmes personality than flashy fight scenes that don't fit with the Holmes persona. Hollywood failed on that standard, and I would rather they entitle their action detective movies James Bond and leave Sherlock for those who enjoy actual sleuthing.

Another thing, Engineer's give fairly accurate estimates most of the time, and we're decent judges of priority as well. Telling us that something taking as long as it takes is unacceptable will net you an answer of too bad, not make the thing finish faster.

I think the thing that annoyed me most about Transformers two (which I regret seeing, let alone the money spent to see it), was a simple math error (4-1+1 != 5). They spent how much on that movie just to leave in such obvious mistakes?

Premium content - an expensive waste of time, 90% of the time (which 10% you like is highly subjective).

That 10% plus the fact that no one else prices themselves out of their market accounts for the piracy behavior you have noticed.

Disclaimer: Statistics are derived from a sample-size of 1 and have a negligible confidence level. They have been included for illustration purposes only.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I'm going to guess you to be AT LEAST older than 30 but probably older than that. So here is a clue about us young whipper snappers. Our values are different. And I'm not talking about "theft"/infringement/IP either. I'm stating that the interest in your old content is diminishing.

People like to see things that normal people produce, that they can relate to more. Not what you can produce when you drown something with money.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff.

Some, maybe, but most of the ones I know (and I know quite a few) didn't cut the cord because of cost. They cut the cord because they realized that they could get the same content in a manner that was far, far more convenient.

They can now watch the shows they want on their own schedule, a little bit at a time or in marathon sessions, without any commercials, and on any device or in any location they wish. And they don't have to deal with cable companies (which is always a harrowing experience) when something goes wrong.

Those are the primary reasons they have for cutting the cord. None of them mentioned saving money as their main reason (although a few mentioned it as a bonus).

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, you are free to want whatever you can dream up. But prices are supposed to be a "fair exchange".

You wanting price does not mean you are entitled to force your price on anybody.

Movie studios originally refused to rent movies, they only sold at $135.00 a copy, to almost nobody. People borrowed
from somebody who had what they wanted and watched that. Sometimes they even made copies to give away to friends.

That is why the media companies tried to get the VCR outlawed.
Shot down in court.

So Blockbuster came along and in effect said, "If you allow us to rent movies at a fraction of the purchase price we
will pay you $X every time and eventually you will get the purchase price and maybe more out of each movie."

A few years later and the major source of revenue from movies was video rentals. Some go direct to rental without
ever being shown in theaters.

So the guys, always guys, demanding $135.00 were keeping their companies from increased renenues by snubbing
POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS with their "we never did it that way before" mindset.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I beleive in democracy - but it's a two way street. Believing in democracy also includes respecting the laws that are passed, and working within the democratic system to change them if you don't like them.

Send Rosa Parks to the back of the bus!!! The Founding Fathers should have just bowed to the Crown!!! Sometimes bad laws need revolt.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers.

Wrong. I cut the cord because there's nothing to watch on TV. See my comment that you ignored above - most stuff on TV is total, utter, mindless crap. By some miracle, if there is something I (or my fiancee) want to watch, we watch it on Netflix. If it's not on Netflix...we do something else instead. Note that "doing something else instead" is NOT A LOST SALE. You can't lose a sale that you were never going to make in the first place.

You will continue to not get it until you understand that consumers want convenience and they are willing to pay for it. There is an amazing abundance of entertainment options and there is no reason to ever seek entertainment that is inconvenient. Netflix is incredibly convenient for me. Steam is incredibly convenient for me. I have no problem paying either of these vendors, even though I can pirate the TV shows, movies, and games for free.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

So you are saying that you have never, ever downloaded any episode TV, never downloaded an HBO series, never obtained by sharing anything that would have been available only via your cable / sat provider? Is this your testimony sir?

What else are you doing instead? "Enquiring Minds Want To Know!" - and it better not be pumping gas with Elvis.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What else are you doing instead? "Enquiring Minds Want To Know!" - and it better not be pumping gas with Elvis.

I've downloaded episodes of South Park from SouthParkStudios.com (which, by the way, is pretty much the only reason, beyond Mythbusters, that I stayed on so long with Cable.) I wish Mythbusters would put full episodes up on a website too, but at least they are fairly current with their DVD releases. I wish they would release the DVDs quicker, but 6 months isn't bad. Anything on HBO I'd like to watch (including Game of Thrones,) I wait until they are available for rent on Netflix.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

>So you are saying that you have never, ever downloaded any episode TV, never downloaded an HBO series, never obtained by sharing anything that would have been available only via your cable / sat provider? Is this your testimony sir?

Yes, it is. That you would think our lives must either revolve around the television or illegitimately gaining access to its content is an extremely arrogant, irresponsible and shallow point of view.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"So you are saying that you have never, ever downloaded"

Why, I believe he is. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, you can stop pulling this idiotic attack out of your ass every time someone criticises the glorious system you worship, and perhaps gain the inkling that not everybody who thinks you and your system are full of shit are pirates.

Then, maybe you can join us in reality and have an adult discussion on the actual issues. Maybe.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually, that's not anarchy. The general and most commonly considered true definition of anarchy is basically society without government. That is not to say a lawless society, but a society that gets on without a government imposing it's will in any way, shape or form.

Of course people like you love using "anarchy" and painting it to mean "rape and pillage and murder to your heart's content and to hell with anyone else". But that's not surprising, although that does say a lot about you personally that you would think that is what would happen.

"Wow. You think those are the only choices? Cord cutters are cutting the cord because they found a cheaper source for the same stuff. They aren't paying HBO, they are now downloading HBO dramas from torrent sites and file lockers. But if HBO stops producing, what will there be in the file lockers? "

No, there are plenty of other choices. Not just the one you mention. Some people, shocking as it may be to you, do entirely without. Others make do with independent offerings. Others are happy with "cat videos" (as bob would say). There are a plethora of options for entertainment. You're just focusing on content as it applies to video (or even music). You are aware music and tv shows now have to compete with games, right? Or social media? Or, hell, even going outside? Shocking I know, but the amount of choices people have today to give up paying for something that isn't really that great is astounding.

"Cord cutters are people who think they found a better way, but they forgot to look at cause and effect. It's not about "make cheaper content", it's about "I can't get beer for free, but I can pirate your content. So I pay for beer, and pirate your stuff"."

Cord cutters are people who tend to realize they're overpaying for something they don't necessarily need and can obviously do without. Hence the cord cutting. I DO NOT want a landline phone, however, for our security system to function properly it is required, so I have it. However, if I didn't need it for that reason, I'd shut it off quick, fast and in a hurry.

"The consumer is always right for the consumer, but they may make it impossible for a market to exist. I would like a $1 a month apartment in Manhattan, at least 1500 square feet, and I would like a free butler. I am the consumer, I must be right!"

No, the consumer is always right. Hence the commonly used expression, "the customer is always right". And up until the early '90s that was the case with most industries (including, surprisingly, the entertainment industry).

As a consumer, you are right, per your example. However, the people with apartments how you want them, DO NOT have to cater to you. That is their choice, as it is yours to find someone else who will. Even if the other apartment renters DO NOT like it. Which is how things currently are. The market, us customers, has told the entertainment industries what we want and how we want it. Only recently have they begun making some headway to appease us, of course the moment they see that we want their products on our terms and give them money they think they can take back control and tell us how they want to give us their products. That may work, but more often than not people will tell them to "fuck off". You won't meet my wants/needs I'll go to someone who will. Loathe as you are to accept it, piracy is a product of YOUR and YOUR INDUSTRIES refusal to cater to the changing markets and technological innovation. Piracy could be practically wiped out if you'd just give the people what they want (your products, DRM free, in a variety of formats, with no geographical or time related restrictions and at a reasonable price all in a convenient location/manner and as easy to use/purchase as possible). And no one is saying they want it free, they'll hand over their money. But if you aren't willing to meet them halfway, then they'll go elsewhere and it's your own fault/problem.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"I beleive in democracy - but it's a two way street. Believing in democracy also includes respecting the laws that are passed, and working within the democratic system to change them if you don't like them."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Every so often I buy a DVD and invite friends and family over for a movie night.(maybe 10 people)Everyone brings snacks and drinks.it's a lot of fun.
It's my movie and I don't charge any one to see it.
Am I a pirate because I allowed those ten people to view it for free? Some of them ask me for a copy for their library.
If I them give a copy should I Send the rights holder a check, even though that person would not go out and buy the movie? (Usually because they just finished watching it!)
Well now! Being the ever good anarchist that I am, I guess that I will have to discontinue Movie Night and stop buying those DVDs. Don't want any one saying the I disrespected any of our great IP laws.
I don't think that the Movie industry will miss those pidly little regular purchases from me.I mean, after all I'm just one person. And an anarchist at that! Who Knew!

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Cutting the chord can be as innocent as using Netflix, Hulu plus, and a digital antenna for content instead of the cable company. It does not necessarily mean get it for free. %175.00/mth compared to $60.00/mth, it's not that hard to see the economic advantage to cutting the chord in a legal fashion.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So everyone who doesn't subscribe to premium content must be a pirate because we just can't get enough of your crap. Could you possibly be more disconnected from reality or do you really believe the crap that you just spewed out of your keyboard? Sorry to break it to you but I do not pirate tv shows or movies and yet I am one of those evil cord cutting "pirates" you so obviously despise. It is the condescending attitude by you and others in the media industry that make me happier each day that I made the decision not to give any support to you jackasses.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Except where content is concerned, people want to view, not own, and duplication is free.

So it's more like you have a lease agreement to an apartment in new York, and I pay you a dollar for a photocopy. I get to see it. You get to see it. And it's still your apartment.

The entertainment industry is built on selling free copies of shows they have already paid to produce. If I don't pay for entourage, entourage doesn't cease to exist, because somebody in an expensive suit already paid for it.

Hurts if you're a studio, but they could lessen that pain of they stopped trying to pretend every digital copy costs them more than nothing to produce.

Re: Re:

"people will not pay for as long as they can get it for free." - Thats such bullshit AC, and you know it.

I can get everything free. I still shell out 200 a month on phone, internet and DirectTv. Everything I see can be downloaded VIA the interwebnets. Guess what? It is not worth my time to replace all that content with downloads. Also guess what? If there were more outlets for content, and not just the crap out there now, complete catalogs, I would gladly pay for access to that. But ohhhh noooooss the pie-rates may copy it and put it out there for freee ohs my gods. Concentrate on the users like myself that will pay, instead of those who wouldn't pay, and even given a place to do so still would not.

"and when the "alternate financing" models are not paying the way"
Dont worry, technology will catch up to the point that we will no longer need to spend 200 million dollars to make a movie that looks great. I cant wait for that time.

Creators do so because they love to do it. Once tools are readily available to make their final product high quality, your precious little studios will fall and no one will care because there will still be quality entertainment out there at an affordable price.

Re: Re: Re:

you can still do it somewhat cheaper, netflix for general "content" run to tv's via roku boxes (50 bucks for a refurb on woot.)

the roku boxes are great because you can wireless stream hi def to your tv's as well, using a third party program (available from the pirate bay if you wanna be a jerk, but i prefer supporting independant coders), so you have netflix on tap to channel surf, and do old series, and you can stream your pirated content. As for the phone there's lots of Voip based options you could use to cut that out, if you still need a land line at all. Maybe a google voice number, or skype even?

that takes care of direct tv, and the landline, replacing it with 15 bucks roughly, 8 for netflix, call it 8 or ten for a good proxy account (i like btguard). that saves you 150, INCREASES your available content since you've got everything ala carte and on demand, and means you can now get a faster internet speed on the savings.

roku boxes are cheap and easy, the older refurb'd ones are even better, they come with an ethernet port, and hardwire is always preferable, although they do ok wireless, if you've got a good dual band router.

Re: Re:

Yeah... it will be a great day when you no longer have the stuff to pirate that you love.

I love how people think that content is just going to go away.

People have been producing art and music for ages and ages and ages. It's cheaper and easier and make content now than ever before. If all of Hollywood disappears today there would be no shortage of great content.

people will not pay for as long as they can get it for free.

So basically you're admitting defeat? No one will pay for water as long as they can get it for free? Heck, no one will pay for oxygen bars as long as they can breath for free? No one will pay for free TV as long as it's free?

If no one wants to pay for your services, your services isn't as great as you think it is.

Re: Re:

Stuff is already paid for.

This guy has his head up his nether regions.

I'm already getting nagged by the spouse to cut the cord because her iPad centric web based diversions are already more than enough to make here completely disinterested in an expensive cable subscription.

The thing with DVDs is that they are kind of permanent. Once you pay for them you don't have to pay for them again. So the market could be saturated already.

You can watch a 40 year old show on 5 year old DVDs in lieu of watching cable. This means you won't be paying any extra money for new DVDs or paying for "premium content" either.

Re: Stuff is already paid for.

Good point about saturation. There are a bunch of classic films and tv shows that I've bought on DVD. There aren't many more that I'm interested in buying so all of my current and future DVD purchases will be of current and future content, whereas for a while I was also buying old content to complete my library. That is done now.

There must be many people in a similar situation and anecdotally speaking that could well contribute to the decrease in DVD sales. People have already bought.

Of course that is why they spent so much money pushing Bluray... they wanted people to buy the same things again but "now with more shiny".

Re: Stuff is already paid for.

"The thing with DVDs is that they are kind of permanent. Once you pay for them you don't have to pay for them again. So the market could be saturated already."

I know I've bought far less DVDs in the last 12 months than I had in the average year before that. The reason? Last time I took stock of what I owned, I had over 80 DVDs and Blu Rays I haven't watched yet, let alone the unseen extra features and commentaries on discs of movies I've watched... That's on top of the pile of unplayed Wii, 360 & PS3 games. I probably have at least a year of entertainment, if not 2, already lying around in my living room.

So, yeah, I've bought less DVD/Blus this year so far so that I can watch the content I've already legally bought. According to these geniuses, that should be illegal...

Analogies

Much as I love the horse & buggy example, maybe we could use some others as well?

For example, once upon a time most homes were lit using candles, oil lamps, and gas lanterns. Then one day, a certain middle-manager douchenozzle whom history for some stupid reason credits with being an inventor; Thomas Edison, to be specific; managed to successfully mass-market the lightbulb--and the sales of candles, oil lamps, and gas lanterns has never been the same.

Re: Re: Analogies

Re: Analogies

I've always liked the "ice suppler" analogy, as I feel it more closely relates to the media business issues, in that technology came along (refrigeration) that made it cheap and easy for anyone to obtain a product (ice) putting the old supplier (ice supply companies) in a tough spot because they were no longer needed.

Re: Google is more like a road sign than a road

With the crap going through the courts now, I'd be surprised if someone hasn't tried. There was that story from the other day where accident victims tried to sue a 3rd person for sending the driver a text message.

Personal Accountability has gone the way of common sense.... To a galaxy far far far away...

Re: Cord Never

Re: Cord Never

I was a telephone never when I bought my first house. I tore the old telephone line out once I move in because the telephone company draped the line on top of my carport and over the roof in order to get to the back of the house where their box was. It was a terrible job. I took a couple pictures and used some wire cutters to fix the job.

Re: ...despite being fearful of those "dangerous" machines

Yeah they just went right to the public:
The automobile industry eventually began waging a psychological campaign to get pedestrians out of the streets. First, it invented the term "jaywalking" (a reference to the idea of jaybirds as loud idiots) to make fun of pedestrians walking in the street as being stuck in the past.

Second, schools helped train new generations of children to avoid the streets when the American Automobile Association (AAA) became the top supplier of safety curriculum for U.S. schools in the 1920s, Norton explained. The AAA also spread the idea of school safety patrols to help keep kids out of the street.

The popular phrase "America's love affair with the automobile" eventually came along in a TV show called "Merrily We Roll Along" as part of the DuPont Series of the Week in 1961 — a time when DuPont owned a large percent of stock in General Motors. American comedian and actor "Groucho" Marx used the phrase in his narration of the show until it stuck in people's minds.

Re: Two dogs

Re: Re: Two dogs

As much as I hate hearing the audio from those shows in the other room when my significant other is watching them, I do believe that those people will be the first deported from the country if there were ever a revolution of the 99%. That's episode I'd watch.

It seems that a sensible way to address the situation is to come to agreement on how many frames/minutes/clips in an overall piece constitute fair use and rely on existing watermark recognition to filter everything else. There'd have to be some effort on the part of the studios to utilize differing watermarks for trailers and content that was authorized by the rights holder but it doesn't seem like an impossible task. I'm sure there are issues to overcome within this broad concept, but it seems like a reasonable starting point.

Re:

It seems that a sensible way to address the situation is to come to agreement on how many frames/minutes/clips in an overall piece constitute fair use

Except that fair use can't be boiled down to such a oomputation. The context of usage is the most important thing. It's pretty easy to come up with situations where the use of the entire work could fall under "fair use".

Re: Re: Re:

Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire documentary to a class in school is fair use.

Under current US law, I'm pretty sure showing an entire feature length film to a cinema class is fair use.

Sorry, no citations, but John's assertion that context of usage is a critical factor in determination of fair use is correct.

As an example, in grade school, my classes were periodically shown documentaries and educational videos pulled from the library (Those reel to reel projection video tapes that got stuck and the bulb burned out the tape) and even without citation I can guarantee that the school did not pay public performance fees.

Example 2: Most schools in England showed Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" to grade school classes. Again without citation, I can guarantee there were no public performance fees paid.

Re: Re: Re:

Yes. When it is a documentary I am showing to my students to access the frameworks in the most efficient manner possble, while training them to become critical of video source material and recognize how historical documentaries are constructed by the big content industry.

And yes, I use youtube for that. Just like all the other K-12 teachers do.

Re:

It seems that a sensible way to address the situation is to come to agreement on how many frames/minutes/clips in an overall piece constitute fair use

That would be a total restructuring of fair use, and one I wouldn't be in favor of. I think the current structure does a better job determining what is and isn't acceptable to do without the copyright holder's permission, even if it's not deterministic.

Disagree

"Separately, you can't create an algorithm that detects fair use. Or the public domain. Point being: it's not that easy and it's silly to claim otherwise."

I will have to disagree with the above statement. It is easy the algorithm just needs to use the following logic.

Check X
If X is listed in Public Domain DB approve.
If X is NOT listed in Public Domain DB continue.
If X is listed in piracy list DB for the specific instance block.
If X is NOT listed in piracy list DB for the specific instance approve.

Re: Disagree

Re: Disagree

Not really. You've just moved the problem from the algorithm to a database.

That piracy list DB would have to have every single piece of content on the web listed and properly analysed to determine if it is fair use or infringing. This in turn would require it to be constantly updated with judges determining the trust for each item. So we're back to square one.

Re: Re: Re: Disagree

The only way to know if it is not a fair use or other allowed use you would have to have a list containing that specific use as infringing.

That is the magic script it blocks everything that it knows if infringing and allows everything else.

Exactly the point: that would be magic. Nobody knows how to program a script to determine fair use. How would you program a computer to recognize parody, or estimate the impact of a use on the market for the original work?

Re: Disagree

What is X? It is a bunch of sequential bits, right? Now, consider I change a bit in that sequence from 1 to 0. To a human looking at the thing those bits represent, an image, movie, or song, minor changes will be unnoticeable. But to a computer, that sequence of bits is no longer X.

Re: Disagree

With that algorithm, all TV and music would be blocked. The real issue is that its not the content that is illegal, its the distribution without permission that is illegal. There is no DB that contains how has given who permission to distribute everything ever made (everything is covered by copyright once its created)

Re: Re: Disagree

Only the 1 specific use would be blocked. So each page that hosts the same file would have to be listed since it cant be determined that the use on sight Z is infringing but on sight Y is authorized.

The the actual address is not listed it is not blocked.

(I guess that everyone missed that I was poking fun at those who think a magic button or program can decide what is infringing or not with out it having at assume everything is allowed unless told other wise. You know the same way it is now.)

Bunch of smart guys

"I don’t want them to censor results, but they have a bunch of smart guys there that can figure this stuff out."
I don't want Hollywood to stop making movies, I want them to stop making crap movies. They have a bunch of smart guys there that can figure that stuff out. Right?

Contrasting porn (child or otherwise) and copyright infringment by saying one is obvious and the other not is not altogether accurate. Pornography has three aspects that were developed in the Miller case (Miller v. California, Supreme Court, 1973):

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law, and

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Of course, the ubiquity of access via the internet to pornography that in some areas would pass the Miller test and in others would not poses a substantial challenge to the application of the law. Insofar as I am aware, only one circuit court of appeals has held that a national standard should now apply. As yet, the Supreme Court has not reconsidered the continued viability of the Miller test.

Only Justice Potter Stewart has ever taken the issue head on with his well-know statement "I know it when I see it.", and his statement has never been accepted by others on the court.

While most of what is typically considered to be child pornography would be viewed as such in virtually every community in the US, there still remain circumstances where it is either not so clear or else third party reactions idiotic beyond belief (Walmart turns in parents who took photos of their three very young kids playing in the bathtub...their children were removed from their home for a period of time).

Re:

Another place where child pornography becomes ambiguous is when it is difficult to determine whether the actor is a minor, or is indented to represent a minor or not. A notable example of this is the case in which a man was accused of having child pornography, and the actor, Lupe Fuentes, actually appeared in court to exonerate him.

Re:

Kudos, I flagged this insightful, and I hope everyone does. This is an excellent contribution to the dialog (re: IP, not kiddie porn).

To echo Pro Se's argument:

Kiddie porn, even within one jurisdiction, is not an entirely black and white call, because the perception of porn and the perception of child, as well as the perception of what part of the making of the content matters (make cartoons felonies?) are highly subjective.

And yes, some people, for whatever reasons have monumentally stupid reactions to nakedness.

Pro Se, I have a question about your reasoning here. I thought the "average person" reasoning, and the "know it when I see it" reasoning , i.e the Miller case, were regarding obscenity.

Are you equating porn, which is really a genre of content rather than a legal classification, to obscenity in order to abbreviate your argument (type less), or are do you view them as equivalent, or even synonyms?

My understanding is that, in the US, Obscenity is illegal, and child porn is illegal, but adult porn that is not adjudicated as obscene is legal. I assume you are merely conserving words and time, but it would be nice if you could speak for yourself on the conflation of obscenity and porn.

Final point:
Determinations of both copyright infringement and kiddie porn include subjective judgements. It is disgusting that the IP maximalists would conflate child abuse with making digital copies of their content.

Re: Re:

"Obscenity" is generally the legal term used, but words like "pornographic" and "hard core" oftentimes find their way into judicial opinions.

Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, it is "obscenity" (even though ponographic [sometimes modified by hard core] continues to pop up every now and then) that is deemed to be unworthy of protection under the First Amendment.

I believe you agree that the test is fraught with problems, many of which depend upon the "eye" and "sensibilities" of the one exposed to the material, i.e., matters that are subjective and not objective. This subjective element in my opinion extends to each of the three elements comprising the Miller test, and it is for this reason that the ability to say "Yup, obscene" is every bit as difficult to ascertain as is copyright infringment except in only the most egregious of cases.

Interestingly, I do not recall the availablity of clearly obscene materials (which are excluded from First Amendment protection) over the internet ever having been discussed to the same extent as that of copyright infringement. I do not know why this is so, and do not believe that speculation would add anything of substance to the conversation. I must note, however, that this specific area of the law is not one I have studied to any significant degree.

In sum, and as you note, it is the subjectiveness associated with sexually explicit materials that make them well nigh impossible to classify as obscene except in the most extreme of cases. What is deemed obscene in one geographic location may very well be considered as having significant artistic merit in another.

Re: Re: Re:

Pro Se,

I appreciate your response and engagement. My question to you was sincere, as was your response. Your clarification is consistent with what I thought you meant in the first place. Again, your comment that I queried was cogent and insightful, and I appreciated the fact that you challenged the the OP's assertion. I agree the OP's equivalency was Bunk. (That's you Mike, no offense)

I do believe that we agree on the interpretation of current law in this area.

I would emphasize that the local part the Miller test doesn't make sense even within a single large city, let alone the country as a whole. If you (general you, not Pro Se you) have ever lived in a large city, you would know that the community standards vary widely within miles, or even along street borders.

Re: Obscenity over the internet: It isn't speculation, it is conviction.

I know this is not what you study and focus on, so just FYI ...
A guy who lived and worked in California was sentenced to prison in Florida for obscenity. He was sentenced for what he had on his website, which was viewable in Florida.

"Greenwald's entire point in discussing the farcical proceedings that convicted Little is that they specifically selected a venue for prosecution best suited to clearing that first hurdle:

'Even though he lived and worked in California, the Bush DOJ dragged him to Tampa, Florida in order to try him under Tampa's "community standards," on the theory that his website used servers physically based in Central Florida and some of the films were sent to Tampa customers who purchased them.'"

Easy to find lots of different takes on the issues, but the guy was in Cali, his internet business was in Cali, then he was convicted in Florida.

"And that's no legal standard at all - that's the whim of men, and most specifically men with a very particular kind of agenda regarding any and all public expressions or discussions of sex and sexuality - repulsive or otherwise. I think that the way to address this is not by a rigged judicial process but by passing better obscenity laws that have in mind as their first principles not moral scolding but the protection of porn performers, and that clearly lay down what is accepted and what is not rather than leaving those judgments to the whim of a given prosecutor."

Closing: Many of us feel that attacks on copyright infringement should not be as strident as they currently are. When the industries equate copyright infringement with kiddie porn, frankly ... kiddie porn gets a free pass.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Glad you got your clarification.

BTW, I was not trying debunk the author, but only noting that in the area of obscenity there is so much subjectivity involved that in many circumastances what is and what is not obscene is not easily determined.

The band Queen once admitted they released a couple crappy albums just to fulfill their contract. I think Hollywood over the last 10 years has released a shit ton of cookie cutter crap movies so they could complain about this evil piracy that's driving down ticket sales. Too bad they still have record ticket sales. The tech industry should just buy out the content industry completely and shut them up.

this, unfortunately, is the exact sort of brainless idiot whose opinions are believed and then acted on. when someone proposes or introduces a clear and sensible plan that would actually combat infringement and, in particular, child porn, (eg, like joining the digital age), that someone is completely ignored at best and belittled at worst! surprising the lengths some will go to just to get their own way and/or have their opinion adopted as gospel!

Feasibility

Sufficient is, of course, subjective to the subject. However, I propose a simple test to anyone promoting legislation on the use of computers. Produce a feasibility study of your target operating under the proposed constraints and get it approved by engineers from outside your organization and affiliates.

Failure to do this means that the law will not have the effects you intend, at which point you ought to be dismissed.

Re: Feasibility

Buying = Patronage

This week I found out that the Legend of Korra (sequel to the animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender) was available for purchase on Amazon's instant video service. I don't have cable. I certainly am tech-savvy enough to download any TV show I want. However, I have a job and I am perfectly willing to pay for the content I want. In my mind, it is much like the classic concept of patronage of an artist. In this case, I had expected to wait until the show was on DVD but with the show on that service (and streamable to my TV via my PS3 or my Roku box) I don't see any reason to wait. I bought one episode to see if I'd like it as much as the previous series; then I bought a season pass for the rest of the series. Now, Nick can factor my immediate purchase along with the cable broadcast ratings when they decide if they want to order additional episodes. I'm paying for what I want, and voting on what I want more of. If HBO would let me give them money for immediate access to Game of Thrones, I'd do that too instead of waiting for the Blu-Ray a year later.

Well, here's a clue. I'm not paying. Not one penny. Nor am I consuming their product. I cut the chord and got rid of the tv. I am neither using their product nor paying for it. The chord isn't just cut, it's been hauled away and it isn't coming back.

Produce all the trash Hollydud wants. Any time the quality of humor is so bad that it takes canned laughter to tell you where the punch line is, that so insults my intelligence to the point that it offends me.

So tell me why I should pay for something I can't stand due to subpar quality and over use of commercials? I seem to be missing something here.

Re:

In principle, my GF hates 3 wall sitcoms primarily because of the laugh track. She wants me to find shows with outdoors scenes to avoid that. I agree, though I'm less dogmatic.

However, we both love Big Bang Theory, which is classic 3 wall, and ridiculously funny.

I got her to try The Muppet Show, and she likes it. Again, pure 3 wall with laugh track.

If you are laughing at the comedy, you don't really hear the laugh track. As you point out, it's more a question of quality than it is of format.

As an aside, part of the point of the laugh track is to have the cast perform the episode in front of a live, adoring audience to boost their performance. Not that they need to put the laughs in the final cut, but you know, that's how they think.

His attitude towards disruptive technology reminds me of the Democrat Committee-Chairman who said after they lost the House of Representatives having held the majority for the last 40 years, "I will have to be more accommodating to the Republicans on my committee" One of his staffers said "You don't understand, you are not the chairman anymore the Republicans will now be in charge".

I would be willing to pay upwards to $100 per month for netflix/hulu if it had EVERYTHING:
- Full movie library from as many studios that want my money.
- TV shows with current seasons(past ones too) to watch with new episodes coming out like normal.
- Can watch it on any of my devices (PS3, xBox, computer, iPod/Pad/Phone, ect.)
- New movies with no stupid release windows
- I'll even deal with Hulu-style commercials, 30 seconds in the beginning and 30 at the end for movies. TV can keep the 3 commercials segments.
- Want even more of my money? Give me the ability to watch just released movies the next day after they come out in theaters. I'll even pay a little premium to keep those movies unlocked to me to watch just like everything else.
- Give me an "Offline Mode" and have the shows I like download to my computers so i dont need to always use the internet connection. (have shows pre-download during the night and use wifi to stream to devices)

Do you see what I did there? $100+ per month. For one person for what amounts to a super version of Netflix + Hulu.

Well, here's a clue. I'm not paying. Not one penny. Nor am I consuming their product. I cut the chord and got rid of the tv. I am neither using their product nor paying for it. The chord isn't just cut, it's been hauled away and it isn't coming back.

Produce all the trash Hollydud wants. Any time the quality of humor is so bad that it takes canned laughter to tell you where the punch line is, that so insults my intelligence to the point that it offends me.

So tell me why I should pay for something I can't stand due to subpar quality and over use of commercials? I seem to be missing something here.

Child pornography and obscenity

"I think you're wrong about this in the US. 18 USC 2256 defines child pornography as including: "a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image
that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct."

And the rest of the definition requires the depiction to be obscene under the Miller test.
So my point still stands: Nonobscene virtual child pornography is protected speech.

It is my stance that at any point in time a politician or business person equates piracy to child pornography they are invoking the 'Digital Godwin's Law' and after that point anything they say should be thrown out of pertinent discussions.

The guy has clearly watched too much of his clients' "content." As we know, in Hollywood computer geeks are digital wizards who can do anything the plot demands, just by spouting random technobabble and typing very fast. Someone really should tell him that movie hackers have about as much to do with reality as Harry Potter.